United States v. Cardona

Case: 22-50884 Document: 00516729111 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/27/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50884
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ April 27, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Roberto Angel Cardona,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:10-CR-2213-15
______________________________
Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Defendant-Appellant Roberto Angel Cardona appeals the denial of his
motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Cardona contends that the district court erroneously calculated his
guidelines range at sentencing and that he is entitled to a two-level reduction
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50884 Document: 00516729111 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/27/2023
No. 22-50884
in his offense level under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. He
also contends that the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors favor relief.
We review the denial of Cardona’s § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion for
abuse of discretion and affirm that decision. See United States v. Chambliss,
948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020). Cardona cannot “challenge the legality or
the duration of his sentence” through a motion for compassionate release.
United States v. Escajeda, 58 F.4th 184, 187 (5th Cir. 2023). Furthermore,
because a two-level reduction in his guidelines range would still result in a
total offense level above 43, Amendment 782 has no effect on that range. See
U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A (Sentencing Table), comment (n.2). We need not
discuss the § 3553(a) factors because Cardona fails to demonstrate that the
district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for compassionate
release based on its finding that he failed to establish extraordinary and
compelling circumstances. See United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093
n.8 (5th Cir. 2022); Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 693.
The district court’s decision is AFFIRMED.
2